Does Opinion 260's ban on nonlawyers presenting court orders also bar licensed legal interns from appearing in court?

Plain-English summary

The committee was asked to clarify Opinion 260 as it related to Legal Interns who had been admitted to practice in limited form by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Opinion 260, adopted March 19, 1971, was intended to proscribe the described courthouse activities when performed by persons not authorized to practice law. The committee acknowledged that the earlier opinion had inadvisedly included the words "law interns and clerks" in its general reference to lay employees.

The committee explained that it had not intended "law interns" to refer to Legal Interns holding a limited license from the Court, but rather to law students or apprentices employed by lawyers who are not authorized in any manner to practice law. It pointed to the Supreme Court's Revised Rules Governing Legal Internship (as amended January 1970), which set the limits on and permitted scope of authorized practice for persons holding a limited license. Some activities that Opinion 260 described as improper for a layman, such as appearing in court in waiver or default divorces and ex parte matters like temporary orders in divorce cases, are expressly permitted of a Legal Intern.

The committee concluded that, to the extent the Supreme Court has authorized licensed Legal Interns to perform such acts, performing them in conformity with the Court's rules clearly does not constitute the unauthorized practice of law and therefore is not unethical.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1971, under the Code of Professional Responsibility, before Oklahoma adopted the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (1988) and the later Ethics 2000 revisions, and the legal-internship rules it construes have themselves been revised since. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Did Opinion 260 bar licensed legal interns from appearing in court?

A: No. The committee clarified that Opinion 260's "law interns" language referred to unlicensed students or apprentices, not to Legal Interns holding a limited license from the Supreme Court.

Q: What may a licensed Legal Intern do that a lay employee may not?

A: The committee noted that a Legal Intern may, for example, appear in court in waiver or default divorces and ex parte matters such as temporary orders, which are governed by the Court's internship rules.

Q: Is an intern's authorized activity the unauthorized practice of law?

A: No. The committee concluded that acts the Supreme Court has authorized a Legal Intern to perform, when done in conformity with the Court's rules, are not the unauthorized practice of law and are not unethical.

Background and rules framework

The opinion construes its own Opinion 260 against the Oklahoma Supreme Court's Revised Rules Governing Legal Internship (as amended January 1970), which define the limited license and authorized scope of practice for Legal Interns. The unauthorized-practice analysis carries over from Canon 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility as applied in Opinion 260. The opinion predates the Model Rules and made no Model Rule citation.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Canon 3 (Code of Professional Responsibility): a lawyer should assist in preventing the unauthorized practice of law (as applied in the clarified Opinion 260).

Other authority:

• Oklahoma Supreme Court, Revised Rules Governing Legal Internship (as amended January 1970): limits and permitted scope of practice for licensed Legal Interns.

Other opinions cited:

• Oklahoma Bar Association Legal Ethics Opinion No. 260 (42 OBAJ 747).

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 260: Nonlawyer staff presenting court orders
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 117: Nonlawyer handling a case and signing a lawyer's name
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 11: What constitutes the practice of law

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-264/

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

Adopted May 22, 1971

INQUIRY

The Legal Ethics Committee has been asked for a clarification of its Opinion No. 260, insofar as it relates to Legal Interns who have been duly admitted to practice law in limited form by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

OPINION

Legal Ethics Opinion No. 260, adopted March 19, 1971, (42 OBAJ 747) was intended to proscribe the activities therein described by persons not authorized to practice law.

The opinion inadvisedly included the words "law interns and clerks" in generally referring to lay employees.

The Committee did not intend the words "law interns" to refer to Legal Interns holding a limited license to practice granted by the Supreme Court, but rather to refer to law students or apprentices employed by lawyers but who are not authorized in any manner to practice law. The Supreme Court's Revised Rules Governing Legal Internship (as amended January, 1970) set forth the limitations on and permitted scope of authorized practice by persons holding a limited license from the Court. Some of the activities referred to in Opinion No. 260 as being improper when performed by a layman are expressly permitted of a Legal Intern, e. g., appearing in Court in waiver or default divorces and ex parte matters such as temporary orders in divorce cases.

To the extent that the Supreme Court has authorized, or authorizes, such licensed Legal Interns to perform such acts, the performance of such acts in conformity with the Court's rules clearly do not constitute the "unauthorized" practice of law and, therefore, are not unethical.